Messages - MCB

As for the other issue, no bunnies you don't know the question, but thats the easy part. The issue is having the elements and the laws memorised,

Actually, the memorization is considered the easy part at the top schools, which is why they don't bother testing you on your ability to memorize. Hence, open-book. (Frankly, it doesn't make much difference anyway because you end up memorizing most of the stuff just by creating outlines or other study materials. If you're actually looking for the answer to a legal question during the exam, something's gone terribly wrong.)

I agree with this. I find the open book exams to be much more challenging, at least to ace. This is because you basically get no credit for the strict memorization you've done (the easy part of what you're doing when you're studying in law school!). The grades are given based on a curve as everyone here knows, and if all the students have an outline giving them black letter answers, then essentially the entire significant part of your exam grade turns on the depth and quality of your analysis.

I never get how students seem relieved when they find out that an exam will be open note/open book. Maybe if you were the ONLY one allowed to have notes, then it would help you. But since everyone has them, we all just end up canceling each other out on the easiest parts! I was talking to a fellow student about this exact thing earlier today, and we theorized that professors like to go open note because the overall quality of exam probably goes up. Which of course, doesn't benefit students so much as it benefits them. I doubt it has much to do with not wanting to stress us out.

I agree with most of what's been said in this thread, but I'd like to add one additional point that sprung to mind as I was reading the original post.

Writing on forums like this also entails a key aspect that doesn't apply to humanities-type papers nor legal writing; it's totally voluntary. You aren't being graded and there aren't any formulas you have to follow or topics selected for you. For me, the inherent pressure of any assigned writing is what sucks some fun out of writing. Internet forums are inherently going to be a different exercise altogether than anything you're doing for school, or even for a client, in terms of style, time, and content pressures. So yeah, I don't know if you can use a like for posting online as any kind of basis for a talent in legal writing.

Was she an at at-will employee? Bosses can sh*t can employees for all sorts of reasons, outside of explicitly prohibited ones like racial/discriminatory reasons. I don't see why they'd bother framing someone with a drug test. Wrongful termination is a higher standard than a lot of people seem to think. Now, if they go on to deny her unemployment benefits due to gross misconduct, she may have a case to get those benefits reinstated. But wrongful termination, that's a real uphill battle for most people. Just my layman's opinion, of course, as I'm just a law student.

As far as slander, what's the case for this? Did the employer tell anyone other than your friend about her drug test results? If so how did she suffer as a result of this?

Also maybe I've become a jaded a**hole, but I can't get myself to believe that this is actually about your friend and not you.

I concur with the sentiment that Malibu offers a nicer quality of life, and quality of life is a serious concern when choosing a school. However, Malibu is FAR from other parts of L.A., and specifically, anywhere you might get a legal internship or have an interview. "LA" covers a very large area and Malibu is on the extreme outskirts, particularly when you consider traffic. And outside of job concerns, Malibu is a very quiet town and inconveniently far from most socially appealing parts of LA.

Loyola is located in a toilet bowl in the middle of filthy, smog-ridden downtown, but that's exactly where all the firms are. Like, you could walk from campus to many downtown firms. And even though there is a lot of traffic, you aren't going to be that far away from some much cleaner, livable, interesting areas. So there's a pretty extreme trade off going on between these two choices. Definitely visit both. You may fall in love with Pepperdine, you may actually like Loyola.

My anecdotal experience is that I've seen many more Loyola grads in LA firms than Pepperdine grads, but that could have to do with the sheer number of graduates that Loyola produces vs. Pepperdine. An absolute top student at either school may have a decent shot at Big Law, but I wouldn't make any decisions based on the assumption that you will do that well at any school. All that said, I also got into these two schools and would have chosen Loyola for practical concerns (and also because I am an LA native and impervious to smog) but decided to relocate to San Diego in the end. Whatever you decide, congrats and good luck!

I have OCIs with both navy and marine JAG this Tuesday. The only info. I really have available to me regarding what these jobs truly entail is whatever I can find on the internet, so hearing about anyone else's firsthand experience would be wonderful. Any general info. or tips would be greatly appreciated!

I think there's an element of luck, but as someone who did consistently well on exams, I'd like to think that luck was only a small part of it, though I'm obviously biased. I did, however, take some exams I thought I aced that I didn't do so well in, and took some I was worried about that I ended up acing.

So, my guess is that I had a little bad luck, and a little good luck. But you still need a solid foundation of knowledge if you hope to have enough "luck" to get an A. I think part of the "luck" mystique comes from disillusioned law students who spent lots of time studying but didn't do so well. To them, what else could they attribute their mediocre grades but luck? The person surfing the internet in class in front of him who did better on the exam must have been "lucky."

But, to keep some perspective, I don't know anyone who did well without doing any work--not to say that people who do well have no lives, but a certain baseline is required. You have to familiarize yourself with all the material, through whatever method works for you, and, before you take the exam, you have to have an idea how to apply the material to fact scenarios you have not yet seen (usually through practice exams).

Some luck may also come from differences among professors, particularly in 2nd and 3d year courses.

And, you could always get sick, or have some distracting personal matter arise, right around exam time.

But overall, I find myself agreeing with Thomas Jefferson: "I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."

This is a fantastic post. And based on my experience, I agree with all of it. Even those blessed with photographic memory and 'good luck' as far as the curve goes need to study in law school. It is important to study smart though, and use methods that are effective. There's so much information to master, I can see why many students frustratingly waste a lot of time and energy spinning their wheels.

It's definitely not a security blanket thing for me. If you're saying they don't work for you, I can appreciate that, but I'm not really worried about being dependent on the bright yellow sponges. If they were effective for me(not sure if they would be) and if they were legal, I would certainly use them. I've worked in noisy environments and quiet ones, and there have been times when my productivity has been seriously impaired by noise level. In a work environment, you can always stay late to make up for lost productivity, but that is not the case with the LSAT. We all know that the stakes are very high. Two more correct answers can make the difference between accept and reject. I can accept that using earplugs is not an option, but let's not act as though it's ridiculous to inquire about them.

I didn't mean to imply that it was ridiculous for you to inquire about them. You make some valid points, and if you really feel like they will help you on the LSAT then I agree that it's worth it to use them. I guess for me it was more a pent up rant following a couple very long and intense weeks in the library surrounded by weirdos with fluorescent ears. I just find them very uncomfortable and kind of silly.